What if WW2 ended earlier?

[Alexanderofmacedon]

The Germans wouldn't be able to hold up a defensive position in my opinion. The tactics the Germans used were based on the Blitzkrieg, which was a very offensive strategy (from what I know). And that was one of the reason they were so effective.

[AggonyDuck]

The Germans wouldn't be able to hold up a defensive position in my opinion. The tactics the Germans used were based on the Blitzkrieg, which was a very offensive strategy (from what I know). And that was one of the reason they were so effective.

Eeerm, not exactly.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Eeerm, not exactly.

Yes, it's VERY possible I'm wrong. Only rescently have I started to find an interest in more modern warfare. I was stuck in the ancient times of Rome and Greece.

Could you please explain why it is wrong?

[AggonyDuck]

Yes, it's VERY possible I'm wrong. Only rescently have I started to find an interest in more modern warfare. I was stuck in the ancient times of Rome and Greece.

Could you please explain why it is wrong?

Well the Germans were not only great at offensive warfare, but they had pretty much early on guessed correctly how certain weapons should be applied in all scenarios. Also the best way to win a defence wasn't actually by standing firm in dug in positions, but by counter-attacking the enemy at a point of weakness. Even small well led counter-attacks against an advancing foe's flank could throw the attackers off-balance and stop a whole advance.

Of course at the start of WWII the Wehrmacht wasn't the battle-hardened force of 1941, but it's training and tactics were definately superior to the other armies of the time. Especially when it comes to mobile warfare the Germans were nicely ahead of the others.

Also what you need to remember is that the difference tactic wise between attacking and defending isn't actually that big in reality. It's really just the initial breakthrough attempt that has big differences between the two parts.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Hmm...Interesting.

[Csargo]

I'm pretty sure that if the French and English would have had one big push along the Maginot Line. Most of what Hitler went on were gambles and most of them payed off in the beginning. He bet on the fact that the French wouldnt cross the Maginot Line into Germany the French wanted to make the Germans attack the Line. So Hitler used that to his advantage and left defensive armies on the western front. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that if the French invaded Germany that they most likely would have been defeated. I'm pretty sure I can find some info to support my arguement

[InsaneApache]

IIRC didn't the French occupy parts of the Rhineland in the early stages of the 'phoney war'?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A Whole host of factors prevented an attack in the West, Chamberlain's leadership was only one such factor. As noted above, nether Army was ready for offensive operations until early 1940, by which time numerous German forces had shifted back to the West.

However, if [and a might big one it is] they had somehow managed an attack through Luxembourg and punched into the Rhineland, Germany would have been in a bad way initially, but the Allies lacked the armored formations and doctrine to make a truly decisive blow. Germany's blitzkreig tactics would have been just as difficult to stop when used as a counter attack tool, but the Allies would have had the Rhine as a fallback. Probably a stalemate at the Rhine with Germany industrializing/war focusing earlier but a somewhat more resilient French army facing them.

Some interesting shifts, since the Norwegian campaign probably doesn't occur in this scenario, but the Italians would have been bound by treaty to come in in support of the Reich -- and would do so with a greater proportion of England's air forces (and ground?) committed to the Rhineland campaign.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A Whole host of factors prevented an attack in the West, Chamberlain's leadership was only one such factor. As noted above, nether Army was ready for offensive operations until early 1940, by which time numerous German forces had shifted back to the West.

Sorry, I lack an edit button at the moment. Nether should read neither and I am referring to the French army and the BEF.

[Aenlic]

I'm not convinced that the world, as a whole, was ready to deal with Hitler until he caused enough grief to make it obvious that something needed to be done. The world simply was unprepared for another massive war. Britain, France and the U.S. along with many other countries were still suffering the lingering psychological effects of WWI. It affected everything. Remember that it took a direct attack on the U.S. to bring the U.S. into the war. Poland, Norway, the Low Countries, France and even the Battle of Britain weren't enough to convince Americans to fight Hitler. Even with existing treaties, I don't think the real public (as opposed to political) will to fight Hitler existed until after Dunkerque, and in the case of America, not until after Pearl Harbor. Ribbentrop-Molotov could have been printed in full with all details known and distributed to newspapers world-wide, with a picture included of Hitler proclaiming himself the future ruler of the entire world, and it wouldn't have stirred up enough people to make a difference.

[ShadesPanther]

Another thing was that Britain feared the communists more than the Fascits and hoped that hitler would attack then but instad signed a teaty with Stalin. They thought maybe they would build up first but then hwe invaded Poland so The Allies had to back up their promises to Poland even though they realisticlly couldn't